The most intriguing phrase to emerge from this
"war," alongside the usual propagandistic
bilge (shock and awe etc.), is "the other
superpower," as used by The Nation, The New
York Times, NDP Leader Jack Layton and others. The
other superpower is global public opinion. It has
the endearing ring of truth.

The justification for calling this another
"superpower" is that it has led to formal
opposition by governments to the U.S.
blueprint. It hasn't stayed isolated in the streets
and polls. Before the war, only Israel -- and the
U.S. -- showed majority support for a war without UN
backing. Since the invasion, that opposition has
held, except in Britain and Australia, whose troops
are involved. (In Canada, opposition has moderated
but not reversed, after a fierce campaign by the
U.S. embassy, the official opposition and much of
the media.) This is a fairly rare case in which
public opinion has been reflected and implemented,
even in nations that habitually accommodate American
pressure, like Mexico and Canada. It's hard to
explain without figuring in that public mood. This
new force did not prevent an attack but seriously
impeded it. My question is: How dare they?

It's one thing to freeze your buns on a march, be
derided in the media and ignored by your government,
then long after, perhaps, have an indirect effect,
like the movement against war in Vietnam or the
anti-nuclear protests of the 1980s. It's something
else to see your government more or less enact your
agenda. My God, did we do that? It's like
getting what you wish for. Are you ready for the
responsibility?

But why not? Who has the right to make these
judgments? I look around at those of us
pontificating in The Globe: Margaret Wente, Marcus
Gee, John Ibbitson, Jeffrey Simpson, the nameless
force who writes editorials -- not one of us speaks
Arabic or really knows the region. What endows us
alone with the right to draw conclusions? If these
well-meaning ignoramuses can do it, why not
everybody else?

What about experts then, academics or journalists
who know the languages and have studied the area?
Well, those experts who consult and influence the
people in power actually seem to be more influenced by
them. Take four examples: lobbyist/columnist Daniel
Pipes, überjournalist Thomas Friedman of The New
York Times and professors Fouad Ajami and Bernard
Lewis. Robert Blecher of the University of Richmond
found (in Middle East Report On-line) that, during
the first gulf war, each of them opposed any attempt
to impose "democracy" in the Mideast. But
imposing democracy has since become the cornerstone
of U.S. policy -- as justifications based on WMD or
links to al-Qaeda faded -- and, oddly enough, each
expert turned into an advocate for injecting
democracy there. Now prostitution is a traditional
way to make ends meet, but it hardly means the rest
of us will be impressed by their views. Former
Ontario premier Bill Davis said he could always find
a social scientist to say whatever he wanted.

Still, by what right and what light? I guess it
comes down to the exercise of common sense. You
don't need to be an expert or insider and, while it
helps to be informed, that's just prelude to some
serious thought. For instance? Well, what do you
make of the unexpected Iraqi resistance so far? The
U.S. has settled on an explanation: Iraqis fear the
regime till they are certain it is gone --
especially since the U.S. betrayed their uprisings
after the first gulf war. In other words, they, too,
exercise common sense. But why not imagine they
sensibly add in the impact of 12 years of sanctions,
which the U.S. demanded, and which punished them
while bolstering the hideous regime? This, too,
would make them doubt U.S. benevolence. And why not
assume any outpourings of gratitude we may see are
as calculated as their absence till now? The Mideast
has a history of welcoming invaders, then biting
them on the bum. (A little information doesn't
hurt.) And what of effects elsewhere among Arabs? Al
Ahram's managing editor writes that "a new
mood, something very like euphoria, has been
growing. The Iraqis, devastated by wars and
crippling sanctions, have been offering what appears
to be stiff resistance." Might this bounce back
into Iraq, so a new factor in resistance becomes not
just residual patriotism but this new admiration, so
they are not just fighting back despite
Saddam but on behalf of the "Arab
nation."

The answer is, no one knows, not yet. But you
need not be an expert or pundit to speculate
intelligently on these matters. Around the world,
apparently people do, and it has helped provide the
genuine, sober counterforce that experts and pundits
had looked vainly for -- Russia? China? The EU?
Global terror? Islamic fundamentalism? -- in a
unipolar world, until now.